## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 14 - 00363 - CR NO. 02 - 14 - 00364 - CR
DAVID ERIC BROWNE A/ K/A DAVID E. BROWN APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 355TH DISTR ICT COURT OF HOOD CO UNTY TRIAL COURT N O S . CR12639, CR12818

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant David Eric Browne a/k/a David E. Brown appeals his unauthorized
- use - of
- a - motor
- vehicle conviction in cause number 02
- 14
- 00363
- CR and his bail
- jumping conviction in cause number 02
- 14
- 00364
- CR. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 31.07 , 38.10 (West 2011 ). Browne pleaded guilty to these

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

offenses, which were enhanced with Browne’s prior felony conviction s , and a jury assessed his punishment at twenty years’ confinement in each case , which the t rial court set to run concurrently. See id. § § 12.3 5(c)(2)(B) , 12.42(d) , 12.425 (West Supp. 2014 ). Browne’s court
- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Browne had the opportunity to file a pro se brief but has not done so. The State did not file a brief. Once an appellant’s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent exa mination of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record in each case and counsel’s brief. Because the order to withdraw funds in cause number 0 2
- 14
- 00 363
- CR does not reflect the actual amount of court costs assessed in the trial court’s j udgment, we3

modify the order to withdraw to reflect the correct amount of costs : $384. 2 See Bray v. State , 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.

— Fort W orth 2005, no pet.) (en banc). We otherwise agree with counsel that the s e appeal s are wholly frivolous and wit hout merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal s
. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’ s motion to withdraw , af firm the trial court’s judgment in cause number 02
- 14
- 00363
- CR with the modified order to withdraw funds reflecting $384 in costs, and affirm the trial court’s judgment in cause number 02
- 14
- 00364
- CR. /s/ Bonnie Sudderth BONNIE SUDDERTH JUSTICE PANEL : MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: October 1, 2015

2 The judgment reflects that the trial court assessed $384 in court costs and placed “N/A” in the spaces designated for a fi ne and for restitution , and the bill of costs from the Hood County District Clerk reflects the same amount

. The judgment incorporates the order t o withdraw funds into itself. Instead of reflecting $384 in court costs, t he order to withdraw funds reflects that “Court costs, fees and/or fines and/or restitution have been incurred in the amount of $1502.00,” and authorizes the withdrawal of funds from Browne’s inmate trust account to pay that amount

.